DESOLATION OF SMAUG reviews thread
- Thread starter strafer
- Start date
- Status
Nerdkiller
Membeur
I'm I hope when I go to the cinema to see this movie, I get a decent biew of the screen.
This is neogaf. Either you go fast or you loose.
Messypandas
Member
Definition of Rebiews
Zantetsuken
Member
Manual spell check, you have lost this time.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm not sure I can support watching any of these films, given the blatant cash grab of splitting a simple 400 page children's book into three films/6+ hours. Although the trailers for this one certainly look good.
*eyeroll*
Single books have been turned into 12+ hour plus miniseries before. Sure three films makes more money, but it's not like its a creatively bankrupt idea from a narrative standpoint. Clearly it's worked for them. Both films have reviewed positively, particularly this new one.
Nappuccino
Member
Well then.
Maybe I will see the first Hobbit at some point. Seems like whatever pratfalls it had might have been justified.
Maybe I will see the first Hobbit at some point. Seems like whatever pratfalls it had might have been justified.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Idk if I can get excited for this.
The special effects in the first (and in PJ movies in general) always put spectacle ahead of (at the cost of) tension. It's supposed to feel like a roller-coaster, but it's more like watching someone else ride a roller-coaster... if that makes any sense.
Guy playing Bilbo was great though.
The special effects in the first (and in PJ movies in general) always put spectacle ahead of (at the cost of) tension. It's supposed to feel like a roller-coaster, but it's more like watching someone else ride a roller-coaster... if that makes any sense.
Guy playing Bilbo was great though.
Don't then. I'm sure Sir Peter will be heartbroken, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Great to hear. I wasn't a huge fan of the first one. It felt so bloated, but hopefully this one will be much better.
Also, why would he think that the title wouldn't be in the dialog. It's pulled directly from the book.
Also, why would he think that the title wouldn't be in the dialog. It's pulled directly from the book.
Oh well.
Rodney McKay
Member
I laugh every time a character pronounces Smaug's name in a serious tone of voice, I don't even care if it's the correct way or not. 
"Oh Sm-OU-g, the stupendous," It's like their playing the meow game from Super Troopers: "S-meow-g"
"Oh Sm-OU-g, the stupendous," It's like their playing the meow game from Super Troopers: "S-meow-g"
While that can be true for some books, it's hardly the case for The Hobbit, it's a small and pretty short story that was stretched to hell and back in order to milk the franchise (and to keep the New Zealand film industry afloat a while longer).
And to be clear, that doesn't mean that the movie is bad, some of the greatest movies in history (2001, Psycho, The Birds) were short stories that was stretched to fit a film running length, but there is no denying that this is happening in with The Hobbit.
I absolutely agree. Film makers should always strive to have their film's length be comparable to the length of the original material.
First one was kind of meh, would be pretty amazing if the sequel managed to be worse. Glad that doesn't appear to be the case.
With that said, I'll see it to hear the amazing score and witness Cumberbatch's performance. All the problems I had with the first one are still in the 2nd, so I doubt I'll come out let down like I did with the AUJ since I'm already aware.
With that said, I'll see it to hear the amazing score and witness Cumberbatch's performance. All the problems I had with the first one are still in the 2nd, so I doubt I'll come out let down like I did with the AUJ since I'm already aware.
This assertion can only be made after all three movies are released. Then one can objectively look at the final product and say "yes, the same could have been delivered in 1/3 the time." I'm not saying the argument is wrong, only that, at this point, there's not enough to go on to really support it (aside from conjecture and claims from one side vs conjecture and claims from the other).
KolosLazar16
Member
YEEEESSSSS.
kittoo
Cretinously credulous
What?
PhoenixDark
Banned
That's not the point...bah forget it. It just strikes me as ridiculous. As a Tolkien fan I just can't cosign this.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
It worked with those films because it wasn't done mainly for monetary reasons. I don't know if this new Hobbit really is good, but the stretching was far too obvious and annoying in the first one. Maybe that won't be the case for the sequels; we'll see (but I doubt it).
CitizenVectron
Member
He's a dragon!
Fenderputty
Banned
I loved the first one too. So of this is better ....
I'm also stoked on the 7.1. Will they be doing their special 3d tech again? I know most people don't give a damn, but I loved the 3d on the last one too.
The funny thing is that there actually was a good movie somewhere in there, they just had to cut out some crap, expand a bit on the good stuff, and completely redo Radagast. Overall, being 40 minutes shorter would've made it a much better movie.
Looking forward to this one now though.
kittoo
Cretinously credulous
Oh. Didnt know that. Nice!
It's not bad, but definitely not as good/necessary as the LotR EEs. It's 11 minutes, most of which is extended/new scenes in Rivendell, and the Great Goblin sings a song in the caves. Oh, and a super brief but very cute scene of Bilbo as a kid interacting with Gandalf.
- Status